TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 473X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded as income under the head salaries and taxed accordingly. Following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat V. Patel [ 2015 (2) TMI 761 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] we answer the substantial questions of law framed in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. - INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 736 OF 2008 - - - Dated:- 6-2-2020 - UJJAL BHUYAN MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. Mr. V.S. Nankani, Sr. Advocate a/w Mr. Balasaheb Yewale and Ms. Rupali Vasaikar for the Appellant Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Respondent ORAL ORDER (PER UJJAL BHUYAN, J.): 1. Heard Mr. Nankani, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Yewale and Ms. Vasaikar, learned counsel for the appellant and on our request, Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned standing couns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the decision of the Apex Court in EMIL Webber Vs. CIT 200 ITR 483 . and contrary to Nalinikant Ambalal Mody Vs. CIT 61 ITR 428 .? (E) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in rejecting the argument of the appellant that if at all, the impugned receipt is correctly assessible under the head capital gains ? 4. Though, it appears that the issue raised in this appeal has been concluded by the Supreme Court in favour of the assessee and against the revenue, by its judgment and order dated 24.4.2018 passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 4380- 4381 of 2018 (Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bharat V. Patel), to put the controversy in proper perspective, it is necessary to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterfere with the order passed by the Assessing Officer holding that the said amount was rightly treated as part of salary. 7. Petitioner made further appeal against the said order passed by the first appellate authority before the Tribunal. It is seen that Tribunal referred the matter to a special bench. The reference was made considering the conflicting decisions of the Tribunal in case of Bharat V. Patel Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax by the Ahmedabad A Bench and in the case of Infosys Technologies Ltd Vs. DCIT of the Banglore Bench. The reference reads as under:- The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in treating the sum of ₹ 4,79,13,851.00 being the amount received on redemption of sto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... person free of cost or at concessional rate, to an individual who is or has been in employment of that person: Provided that in a case where allotment or transfer of specified securities is made in pursuance of an option exercised by an individual, the value of the specified securities shall be taxable in the previous year in which such option is exercised by such individual. Explanation - For the purposes of this clause,- (a) cost means the amount actually paid for acquiring specified securities and where no money has been paid, the cost shall be taken as nil; (b) specified securities means the securities as defined in clause(h) of section 2 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (42 of 1956) and inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he present petitioner to contend that the amount received on redemption of SARs as an employee of the company, there being an employer-employee relationship subsisting at the relevant time, the same should be treated as taxable income under the head income from salaries . On the other hand, on behalf of the respondent, reliance was placed in the case of Infosys Technologies Ltd. It may be mentioned that in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd [2008] 297 ITR 167 (SC) it was held that such benefit could not be construed as income of an employee chargeable to tax under the head income from salaries . 11.2 Supreme Court referred to clause (iiia) inserted in Section 17(2) of the Act by the Finance Act 1999 w.e.f 1.4.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
